Logical issues with belief.

[Habitat]

23 minutes ago, third_eye said:

James Randi does his background research, and what he has proved as woo has been established as woo and worse

~

Would he like reading your old friend, Mrs Underhill, do you think ? I'll go right out on a limb and say he'd call that a "woo-woo" manual.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

Would he like reading your old friend, Mrs Underhill, do you think ? I'll go right out on a limb and say he'd call that a "woo-woo" manual.

You overestimate Randi as much as you underestimate Ms Underhill

~

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

You overestimate Randi as much as you underestimate Ms Underhill

~

I don't overestimate Randi one little bit, he is a guesser who has guessed wrong. End of story. And I don't underestimate Mrs Underhill one little bit. I don't know how much guesswork she employed, but she is on the right track, though I have yet to complete reading that book !

[SHaYap]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't overestimate Randi one little bit, he is a guesser who has guessed wrong. End of story. And I don't underestimate Mrs Underhill one little bit. I don't know how much guesswork she employed, but she is on the right track, though I have yet to complete reading that book !

Randi is no dum dum , though his methods at time leaves much to be desired but he is no ignoramus, he knows enough when he is in over his head and will avoid established scholars like Ms Underhill

As for your opinion about Ms Underhill, best reserve a bit more till you finish reading a few more of her titles ...

~

[Habitat]

12 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Randi is no dum dum , though his methods at time leaves much to be desired but he is no ignoramus, he knows enough when he is in over his head and will avoid established scholars like Ms Underhill

As for your opinion about Ms Underhill, best reserve a bit more till you finish reading a few more of her titles ...

~

Randi has been operating under an assumption, a basic premise, that gives every appearance to the uninitiated, in their many millions, of being correct. But isn't. And yet, he was never in any danger of having the million dollars lifted ! What a strange world it really is, where those conditions co-exist, and seemingly flawlessly. But that's the way it is, 100%.

[Essan]

1 hour ago, third_eye said:

I disagree with that, God is always accessible depending on what accessibility means

 

and depending on what you mean by God     

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Habitat said:

Waffle on, brother, you adhere to the "law of large numbers" theory that says if there are enough dreams, sooner or later, one will seem to be a "hit", and erroneously be interpreted as "prophetic".  And you, and the smug supporters of that idea, would be wrong, yet again. Which is not to say people don't make these false connections, but that that is a cover-all, that can be applied to all, nope, incorrect.

No, the laws of large numbers are more about the ways in which large samples (suitably drawn) come to resemble the populations from which they are drawn, the resemblances arising by "chance alone."  (It follows that small samples are prone to be unrepresentative, which has some relvance to the anecdote thread nearby.)

I am comfortable that the cognitive apparatus of many warm-blooded species can anticipate the future, with better than haphazard agreement, based on there being real patterns in phenomena and the possibility of learning those patterns. Like all fielded detectors and classifiers, such performance is governed by receiver operator characteristic constraints. If people (to name one warm-blooded species) ever make any correct connections, then they will also make some false ones.

I understand prophetic as either metaphorical (being correct about some event before it happened) or literal (being commissioned by a divine figure to discuss future events for the purpose of influencing an audience's present behavior). I don't see how anyone could reliably infer the latter status from merely getting some prediction correct, especially since some canonical prophecies didn't (Jonah, or some of Jesus'), but they are properly prophecies all the same, since they influenced audience behavior.

ETA on a point arising. since it's Randi's word, his usage is legislative. @third_eye is correct here:
 

Quote

Woo isn't one side against another, woo is that part of the everything that is the unconventional that detracts from the common sense of its sum parts, there is Scientific Woo, Medical Woo, History Woo , Religion Woo , Political Woo

and so on and so forth

Randi has fought on all those fronts and more (e.g. Sound system quality woo). What they all have in common is that people exploit other people, take their money, maybe even jeoparize their health, mental and physical, by making false claims in those domains. Randi very much sees himself continuing in the spirit of Harry Houdini, a stage magician who also exposed the frauds of his time.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Randi has been operating under an assumption, a basic premise, that gives every appearance to the uninitiated, in their many millions, of being correct. But isn't. And yet, he was never in any danger of having the million dollars lifted ! What a strange world it really is, where those conditions co-exist, and seemingly flawlessly. But that's the way it is, 100%.

On the brighter note, it also means you can grab that cool million for yourself

~

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, third_eye said:

Randi is no dum dum , though his methods at time leaves much to be desired but he is no ignoramus, he knows enough when he is in over his head and will avoid established scholars like Ms Underhill

I'm not familiar with Underhill, but in what way, relevant to Randi's interest in the supernatural/paranormal, is he in over his head?  There are no established scholars really of the paranormal, just experts who are knowledgeable about paranormal claims.

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, danydandan said:

A literalist interpretation of that allegorical take from the Bible would have no other option but to assume Satan literally took Jesus up to the Highest hilltop. Where Jesus could see every single kingdom of the World. Logically how can one see all Kingdoms from one place on the World if the Earth wasn't flat?

Obviously it's a metaphor, one needs context for qouting content of the Bible. One interpretation of Matthew 4 is that it was probably a dream. Now whats the actual message? There are about four good theories.

It's completely impossible to determine the claims. Why? well, we don't know the Authors, we don't know of God existence, if God's there we don't know if he can communicate. Too many unanswerable questions to determine if the Bible is literally the word of God. Don't you think?

No....sorry.  Again I disagree.  Satan could have taken Jesus anywhere and shown him a vision of all the kingdoms of the world in a moments time.  The fact that it was on top of a mountain just gives a reader the opinion that it was a physical event rather than a spiritual.

And on your second point....it doesn’t matter who the authors are.  We can investigate the claims themselves.  If the claims themselves don’t withstand scrutiny, then it indicates the claim is false, regardless who made it.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not familiar with Underhill, but in what way, relevant to Randi's interest in the supernatural/paranormal, is he in over his head?  There are no established scholars really of the paranormal, just experts who are knowledgeable about paranormal claims.

Which is exactly my point, Mysticism in ye olde days and what Mysticism / Mystical is meant by today's standards are worlds apart, Ms Underhill documents the old chronicles of the lives of the Saints and well known revered Historical individuals and their experiences throughout Europe / England from their own perspectives, from their own words when available, and from accounts of the people familiar and those who were witnesses of their presence. No magic no paranormal no supernatural occurrences as we are so fond of associating with the mystical of the modern mass media age. In many ways Ms Underhill presents more of the philosophy of the metaphysical if it were a branch of Philosophy instead of the theology. I am no expert, I just read and from what I can understand, I know enough to say that those who try to associate it with what we call Mysticism today to what was the Mystic life two thousand years ago is going to be mighty disappointed.

Though there are references to what many would see as supernatural / paranormal characteristics, it was not all that clear cut to the many back in those days, someone pious and deeply devotional would be known as Saintly and revered as such. For example, Jean D' Arc, talking of hearing God speak to / command her was also burned at the stake and it was not all Politics and War, it was also who wants what from God. 

Randi clearly shows that he knows the difference with what Mysticism was and has devolved into in modern times, somewhat critically reminiscent with Transcendentalism / Zen and Meditation has been made marketable with Instant Nirvana with the times ... Or as Lennon / McCartney put it in a song ... Dear Prudence, won't you come out to play ...

Fun Trivia ... Prudence is Mia Farrow's sister ...

~

 

[danydandan]

34 minutes ago, Guyver said:

No....sorry.  Again I disagree.  Satan could have taken Jesus anywhere and shown him a vision of all the kingdoms of the world in a moments time.  The fact that it was on top of a mountain just gives a reader the opinion that it was a physical event rather than a spiritual.

And on your second point....it doesn’t matter who the authors are.  We can investigate the claims themselves.  If the claims themselves don’t withstand scrutiny, then it indicates the claim is false, regardless who made it.

That's fine we can disagree all we want. There multiple different interpretation of Matthew 4. However it appears to be a dream scenario type of thing, in my opinion. Jump off a temple in the Holy City, turning stones to bread and all these tests being in a 'vision' only after a month and a half of fasting. I'd be delirious after fasting that long, actually I'd probably be dead.

Second point, we do need to know the Authors to see if they were inspired by God in some way. If not how can we ask them? If it was a case of God controlling their bodies and doing the writing then God makes an awful lot of contradictions depending on who's hand he was writing with. Maybe God's memory is as bar as our own?

I noticed that you didn't respond to the other points about how it's not possible to test if God exists this rendering the whole point moot in the first place.

Edited March 7, 2019 by danydandan

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Randi clearly shows that he knows the difference with what Mysticism was and has devolved into in modern times, somewhat critically reminiscent with Transcendentalism / Zen and Meditation has been made marketable with Instant Nirvana with the times

Thanks, that makes sense, I don't know much about 'mysticism' but it makes sense that it meant something significantly different in a pre-scientific society than today.  I think Randi is in 'over his head' with what Underhill knows concerning the history of mysticism in the same way they both are in over their head compared to Lennon/McCartney in songwriting; it's true, but the things that Underhill knows better than Randi are not necessarily things that are in Randi's wheelhouse anyway, it doesn't sound like Underhill says anything that is in conflict with Randi.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, that makes sense, I don't know much about 'mysticism' but it makes sense that it meant something significantly different in a pre-scientific society than today.  I think Randi is in 'over his head' with what Underhill knows concerning the history of mysticism in the same way they both are in over their head compared to Lennon/McCartney in songwriting; it's true, but the things that Underhill knows better than Randi are not necessarily things that are in Randi's wheelhouse anyway, it doesn't sound like Underhill says anything that is in conflict with Randi.

No worries, Funny thing is it wouldn't be that far fetched if Randi and Ms Underhill were to change places, Randi would be the one writing and Ms Underhill would be doing some Evelyn Challenge

~

[Habitat]

7 hours ago, third_eye said:

On the brighter note, it also means you can grab that cool million for yourself

~

Another of your many misapprehensions, I stated no-one was any chance of doing so, and did not except myself. You have wrongly interpreted why that would be so, but you are a member if the "team", apt to jump to conclusions !

[Habitat]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

I am comfortable that the cognitive apparatus of many warm-blooded species can anticipate the future, with better than haphazard agreement, based on there being real patterns in phenomena and the possibility of learning those patterns. 

That is just basic brain function, pattern recognition does not require any input from dreams. The pre-cognitive dreams I speak if, are something quite apart from that, they involve details that simply could not have been known in advance, by pattern recognition or any normal predictive mechanism. You prefer to think such does not exist, I know it does, but unlike you, if I did not have that knowledge, I certainly would not be claiming it was non-existent, There could be a clue for you, right there !

ETA on a point arising. since it's Randi's word, his usage is legislative. I
is correct here:
 

Randi has fought on all those fronts and more (e.g. Sound system quality woo). What they all have in common is that people exploit other people, take their money, maybe even jeoparize their health, mental and physical, by making false claims in those domains. Randi very much sees himself continuing in the spirit of Harry Houdini, a stage magician who also exposed the frauds of his time.

Randi and you have this much in common, you are smugly confident that all so-called paranormal or supernatural happenings that are reported, are either mistaken, or fraudulent. You would do better to interrogate yourself as to why you need to keep reiterating that position. I reiterate my position, because I know from direct experience, whereas you are supposing non-existence, based on the lack of any such experience on your part. But I'll tell you why you keep reiterating it, is because you really are not sure, and repeating these mantras keeps the doubts at bay, somewhat. 

 

 

[Habitat]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

it doesn't sound like Underhill says anything that is in conflict with Randi.

I'd say Randi would give short shrift to any claims of the mystical tradition, would demand proof, no proof would be forthcoming, and that would effectively "prove" such claims are void, to those of his ilk. People must ask themselves this question, why does it hurt to say, "I just simply do not know", on relation to these matters. In answering that question, correctly, lies the difference between dying as a fool, ignorant of your own motives, or not.

[Habitat]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

Randi has fought on all those fronts and more (e.g. Sound system quality woo). What they all have in common is that people exploit other people, take their money, maybe even jeoparize their health, mental and physical, by making false claims in those domains

That is the main motive, you think ? The entire advertising industry exists to help extract money from people based on "claims" for products and services, that continually skirt false advertising laws. They basically sell the sizzle, more than the sausage. Is the Great Randi, and those of his ilk losing sleep over that ? Not a minute ! No, the real motive is much closer to home.

[Jodie.Lynne]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

And on your second point....it doesn’t matter who the authors are.  We can investigate the claims themselves.  If the claims themselves don’t withstand scrutiny, then it indicates the claim is false, regardless who made it.

I take it that you believe that the claims do withstand scrutiny?

And may I ask, how do you investigate the claims themselves?

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, danydandan said:

That's fine we can disagree all we want. There multiple different interpretation of Matthew 4. However it appears to be a dream scenario type of thing, in my opinion. Jump off a temple in the Holy City, turning stones to bread and all these tests being in a 'vision' only after a month and a half of fasting. I'd be delirious after fasting that long, actually I'd probably be dead.

Second point, we do need to know the Authors to see if they were inspired by God in some way. If not how can we ask them? If it was a case of God controlling their bodies and doing the writing then God makes an awful lot of contradictions depending on who's hand he was writing with. Maybe God's memory is as bar as our own?

I noticed that you didn't respond to the other points about how it's not possible to test if God exists this rendering the whole point moot in the first place.

Well, I’m sorry to hear we disagree.  It’s ok if we do.  I consider my position solid.  When you say “dream like” you’re right, there’s a thing in the bible called “visions” which refers to a spiritual type of seeing.  Jesus probably saw a vision of some type because even from the highest mountain one would not be able to see all the kingdoms of the world, even if the Earth were flat due to the vast distance between kingdoms and the limitations of human sight.

How you disagree that a claim cannot be investigated regardless of knowing the author escapes me.  Even if we knew the author of the Bible book in question, we couldn’t ask them anything because they’re all long dead.

On proving God, I gave one example as proof....fulfilled prophecy.  Another proof would be the working of miracles.  So yes, I do stand by the position that the bible itself can be tested for divine inspiration.  

[Guyver]

7 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I take it that you believe that the claims do withstand scrutiny?

And may I ask, how do you investigate the claims themselves?

I don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion.  I stated that my opinion is the claims do not withstand scrutiny.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion.  I stated that my opinion is the claims do not withstand scrutiny.

Apologies. I misunderstood your post.

[+Liquid Gardens]

42 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'd say Randi would give short shrift to any claims of the mystical tradition, would demand proof, no proof would be forthcoming, and that would effectively "prove" such claims are void, to those of his ilk.

I wouldn't say that, depends upon the 'claim'.  He would probably give short shrift, you probably would too if you had looked into/tested as many of these claims as he did and not once ever in the history of the world, has there been even decent evidence for what he typically refers to as 'woo'.  "Proof" isn't even close to being much of a concern at this point, that's hand-waving, the near total lack of evidence must be addressed first.  Maybe I'm wrong but I don't get the feeling like any paranormal research today is teetering on the edge of a major breakthrough.  Matter of fact I'm not aware of them making any verified 'progress' at all, it's a tad premature to start using the word 'proof'.

49 minutes ago, Habitat said:

People must ask themselves this question, why does it hurt to say, "I just simply do not know", on relation to these matters.

No, people must not ask that question, it's trivial, off-topic, and utterly beside the point, I don't think anyone here understands your obsession with it.  You've never shown why it matters whether one says, 'woo is possible but I don't believe in it for several reasons' and 'I just don't know' which you insist on for some unknown reason.  Maybe since you mention it so often you can just trademark it and post the trademark which will save you some typing (my vote is for 'The Habirant^TM' if you're accepting submissions). My theory is that since you cannot actually provide evidence for the existence of the paranormal and actually refute skeptics' position, which isn't a critique of your ability just an observation that we don't have anything to work with, you instead focus on this attack because it is safe.  It's an opinion, it's not like you're offering up any evidence that can be refuted for this position either, you can't be proven 'wrong' that the members of 'the team' aren't all foolish dolts as you theorize.  I get whiplash sometimes reading you, you'll type plenty that I agree with and could have said myself, and then this stuff pops up again and you're way out in left field.  I don't get it.  

I don't ultimately know if any 'woo' is true, but I wouldn't say 'I just simply do not know' because that's not accurate.  It's not correct for me to say 'I just simply do not know if Bigfoot exists', there are a lot of non-simple reasons for believing he doesn't, I don't know why you think that should be ignored.  But I guess it depends on which of 'these matters' you're referring to.

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

On proving God, I gave one example as proof....fulfilled prophecy.  Another proof would be the working of miracles.  So yes, I do stand by the position that the bible itself can be tested for divine inspiration.  

It's this that has me confused. You stated that "my opinion is the claims do not withstand scrutiny. ", yet you also state that the bible can be tested for divine inspiration.

So I am a little unclear on your position.

And, not being antagonistic, but how does one test something for "divine inspiration"? Wouldn't one first have to prove that there was a 'divinity' which could inspire?

 

[Guyver]

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

It's this that has me confused. You stated that "my opinion is the claims do not withstand scrutiny. ", yet you also state that the bible can be tested for divine inspiration.

So I am a little unclear on your position.

And, not being antagonistic, but how does one test something for "divine inspiration"? Wouldn't one first have to prove that there was a 'divinity' which could inspire?

 

If you were to be the first human being to ever walk upon the surface of Mars, and as you walked through the red sand something shiny caught your eye....and you picked it up....imagine your surprise if you discovered it was a working timepiece, what could you infer?

It would prove some things, wouldn’t it?  It would prove that you weren’t the first intelligent being to walk on Mars after all, and it would show that whomever was there before you possessed advanced technology....wouldn’t it?

In the same way, the claims of the bible can be investigated and conclusions can be reached as to whether or not these claims are the supernatural kind, or if they are the writings of mere men.  You wouldn’t have to prove that God exists or does not exist prior to investigation as it is the bible itself you are examining, not the being called God in the bible.  Does that make sense?